• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

If McCain wins, do the Democrats gain a seat in the Senate?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Governor of Texas gets to appoint a replacement, unless he is up for election this year, just like when someone dies like in Missouri a couple of years ago.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111

All that proves is that Nixon was a dumbass at picking his choices and getting them by the strongly Democratic Senate.

Besides, look at the number of hours of abortion questioning that Roberts and Alito got, and the scare tactics after Gonzalez v Carhart was decided.
You used Roe v. Wade as an example of how Democrats use the courts to advance their policy positions. Considering the Democrats had nothing to do with the filing of the lawsuit and had appointed only 3 out of the 9 justices on the court, your argument fails.
Which party blocked Robert Bork's nomination?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,379
25,149
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111

All that proves is that Nixon was a dumbass at picking his choices and getting them by the strongly Democratic Senate.

Besides, look at the number of hours of abortion questioning that Roberts and Alito got, and the scare tactics after Gonzalez v Carhart was decided.
You used Roe v. Wade as an example of how Democrats use the courts to advance their policy positions. Considering the Democrats had nothing to do with the filing of the lawsuit and had appointed only 3 out of the 9 justices on the court, your argument fails.
Which party blocked Robert Bork's nomination?
Your question in no way relates to what I was saying. You're now simply desperately trying to divert the discussion to an area where you think you have a chance to win.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111

All that proves is that Nixon was a dumbass at picking his choices and getting them by the strongly Democratic Senate.

Besides, look at the number of hours of abortion questioning that Roberts and Alito got, and the scare tactics after Gonzalez v Carhart was decided.
You used Roe v. Wade as an example of how Democrats use the courts to advance their policy positions. Considering the Democrats had nothing to do with the filing of the lawsuit and had appointed only 3 out of the 9 justices on the court, your argument fails.
Which party blocked Robert Bork's nomination?
Your question in no way relates to what I was saying. You're now simply desperately trying to divert the discussion to an area where you think you have a chance to win.
Who do you think you're kidding; when the continued existence of Roe is directly due to Ted Kennedy and his ranting, they're responsible.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,379
25,149
136
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111

All that proves is that Nixon was a dumbass at picking his choices and getting them by the strongly Democratic Senate.

Besides, look at the number of hours of abortion questioning that Roberts and Alito got, and the scare tactics after Gonzalez v Carhart was decided.
You used Roe v. Wade as an example of how Democrats use the courts to advance their policy positions. Considering the Democrats had nothing to do with the filing of the lawsuit and had appointed only 3 out of the 9 justices on the court, your argument fails.
Which party blocked Robert Bork's nomination?
Your question in no way relates to what I was saying. You're now simply desperately trying to divert the discussion to an area where you think you have a chance to win.
Who do you think you're kidding; when the continued existence of Roe is directly due to Ted Kennedy and his ranting, they're responsible.
So what you're trying to say is that the Democrats used the legislature to keep the policies they wanted in place? hahaha.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,183
610
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: winnar111

All that proves is that Nixon was a dumbass at picking his choices and getting them by the strongly Democratic Senate.

Besides, look at the number of hours of abortion questioning that Roberts and Alito got, and the scare tactics after Gonzalez v Carhart was decided.
You used Roe v. Wade as an example of how Democrats use the courts to advance their policy positions. Considering the Democrats had nothing to do with the filing of the lawsuit and had appointed only 3 out of the 9 justices on the court, your argument fails.
Which party blocked Robert Bork's nomination?
Your question in no way relates to what I was saying. You're now simply desperately trying to divert the discussion to an area where you think you have a chance to win.
Who do you think you're kidding; when the continued existence of Roe is directly due to Ted Kennedy and his ranting, they're responsible.
So what you're trying to say is that the Democrats used the legislature to keep the policies they wanted in place? hahaha.
LOL winnar just shot himself in the foot.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,183
610
126
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, did the public vote gay marriage into law? Or did the courts decide the case?

We can argue whether it was good law or bad law all day and it won't change the fact that the liberals can not get gay marriage put in place by the people so they went to the courts.
If equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution are too liberal for you, consider moving to an Islamist theocracy like Saudi Arabia.
Constitution > tyrany of the majority.

PJ likes to ignore this when the issues don't fit his particular ideology.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY